Author Topic: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.  (Read 4361839 times)

Seahug

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 70
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #14470 on: December 10, 2019, 09:19:10 PM »
thanks chris

i own a little bit of FMCCL, maybe 10+% of my position. thought about switching. but i bought at a discount to other series. to swap with the bid/offer spreads i thought it's not worth it, even if reinstated and ends up at a large discount to other series.

there's something similar for BIII for insu cos, i believe treatment of T1 is similar

anyway i hope this investment works out. i need a good year next year...

appreciate the very intelligent ongoing commentary you provide

cheers!


Luke 5:32

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2866
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #14471 on: December 11, 2019, 10:41:56 AM »
SCOTUS decision on whether or not to take Collins pushed to January 10, 2020.  Attached.
"You are life, You are life, in You death has lost its sting.  I'm running to Your arms, I'm running to Your arms.  The riches of Your love will always be enough, nothing compares to Your embrace.  Light of the world, forever reign." Listen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADuWzd7x25c

allnatural

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 317
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #14472 on: December 11, 2019, 10:51:29 AM »
Q1 should be fun... Off the top of my head we have
  • Sweeney unsealed ruling should be released by Jan which will make for great press i'm sure
  • SCOTUS decision to take case Jan 10 (with oral arguments in March/April if accepted)
  • FA should be announced in Jan (with the FA road map looking to be delivered by end of Q1)
  • Capital rule to be released Early Q1 (im guessing more like Feb/Mar after FA is on board and can review)
Meanwhile the GSEs continue to build $5b-$7b of capital every Q.

Entering 2020 GSE pfds are up ~70% (~15% off the highs), with 2020 being make it or break it for "irreversible" admin action, and SCOTUS/lambert/sweeney trials all on deck (imagine this time last year saying shareholders are favored in not one but three separate cases!).
« Last Edit: December 11, 2019, 10:56:04 AM by allnatural »

cherzeca

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3351
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #14473 on: December 11, 2019, 11:58:49 AM »
I am not sure whether it is "better" for scotus to take cases...probably prefer they put a hold on them until collins district court enters a final order.  I dont like the way Alioto was so antagonistic against insurance companies in ACA oral argument

allnatural

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 317
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #14474 on: December 12, 2019, 08:15:17 AM »
Walk through the scenarios. If SCOTUS declines to hear the case at this stage, admin probably can accelerate a settlement with proper cover (their own briefing says they cant proceed w/ housing reform with the litigation outstanding). If SCOTUS takes the case and shareholders win by the summer, admin has the cover to settle and accelerate the recap via a ~$30b tax credit for the overpayment. If shareholders lose SCOTUS i'm guessing worse case a) there is no overpayment credit and b) its possible (but unlikely in my mind) that the admin will try to monetize a portion of the snr pfds in settlement. My takeaway is I don't see a horrible outcome in any 3 of those variations for PFD shareholders, outcome would more materially alter the common valuation.

I am not sure whether it is "better" for scotus to take cases...probably prefer they put a hold on them until collins district court enters a final order.  I dont like the way Alioto was so antagonistic against insurance companies in ACA oral argument

cherzeca

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3351
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #14475 on: December 12, 2019, 09:00:45 AM »
I agree with your scenario analysis and if scotus takes up APA claim I certainly hope they also take up constitutional claim/remedy.  I just think net net, a good enough and safe scenario would be a hold until district court order.

Eye4Valu

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 373
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #14476 on: December 12, 2019, 09:24:20 AM »
I agree with your scenario analysis and if scotus takes up APA claim I certainly hope they also take up constitutional claim/remedy.  I just think net net, a good enough and safe scenario would be a hold until district court order.

Agree. Moreover, looking out to the 2020 elections, if the economy holds, the stable genius is likely to get reelected. Fed is holding steady. A trade deal with China and clawback of tariffs needs to take place, and probably will in some form. This leads me to believe that reelection is likely, and that irreversible administrative action, while favorable, may not be a necessity.

cherzeca

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3351
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #14477 on: December 12, 2019, 10:07:50 AM »
the additional thing to be noted is that even if there is a complete loss at scotus (which I wouldn't expect but which is nonetheless certainly possible) there would still be Sweeney and Lambert trials to take place. 

Luke 5:32

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2866
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #14478 on: December 12, 2019, 10:20:04 AM »
Rosner's post today...
https://twitter.com/JoshRosner/status/1205160851596029952
Hon Sweeney recognized shareholders have deriv claim, direct claim is w GSEs. Does @MarkCalabria, as Chair of @FannieMae & @FreddieMac, know he has an obligation to demand, or sue @USTreasury @stevenmnuchin1 to write-down liquidation pref as per contracts. Think Goodwill suits


...and Pagliara's response.
https://twitter.com/timpagliara/status/1205162700097110016
That is incredible insight- and provides the legal basis for the independent regulator to write down the liquidation preference.
"You are life, You are life, in You death has lost its sting.  I'm running to Your arms, I'm running to Your arms.  The riches of Your love will always be enough, nothing compares to Your embrace.  Light of the world, forever reign." Listen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADuWzd7x25c

Midas79

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 655
Re: FNMA and FMCC preferreds. In search of the elusive 10 bagger.
« Reply #14479 on: December 12, 2019, 12:29:02 PM »
Rosner's post today...
https://twitter.com/JoshRosner/status/1205160851596029952
Hon Sweeney recognized shareholders have deriv claim, direct claim is w GSEs. Does @MarkCalabria, as Chair of @FannieMae & @FreddieMac, know he has an obligation to demand, or sue @USTreasury @stevenmnuchin1 to write-down liquidation pref as per contracts. Think Goodwill suits


...and Pagliara's response.
https://twitter.com/timpagliara/status/1205162700097110016
That is incredible insight- and provides the legal basis for the independent regulator to write down the liquidation preference.

By what I understand of the PSPAs, FnF never had the ability to pay down the seniors any time they wanted, even if they had the money to do so. The important parts are in section 3(a) and 8(b) of the senior pref stock certificate.
https://www.fhfa.gov/Conservatorship/Documents/Senior-Preferred-Stock-Agree/FNM/Stock-Cert/Third-Amend-FNM-Stock-Cert-as-amended_09-30-2019.pdf

Quote
3(a) excerpt: Prior to termination of the Commitment, and subject to any limitations which may be imposed by law and the provisions below, the Company may pay down the Liquidation Preference of all outstanding shares of the Senior Preferred Stock pro rata, at any time, out of funds legally available therefor, but only to the extent of (i) accrued and unpaid dividends previously added to the Liquidation Preference pursuant to Section 8 below and not repaid by any prior pay down of Liquidation Preference and (ii) Periodic Commitment Fees previously added to the Liquidation Preference pursuant to Section 8 below and not repaid by any prior pay down of Liquidation Preference.

Quote
(b) “Liquidation Preference” shall initially mean $1,000 per share and shall be:
(i) increased each time a Deficiency Amount (as defined in the Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement) is paid to the Company by an amount per share equal to the aggregate amount so paid to the Company divided by the number of shares of Senior Preferred Stock outstanding at the time of such payment;     
(ii) increased each time the Company does not pay the full Periodic Commitment Fee (as defined in the Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement) in cash by an amount per share equal to the amount of the Periodic Commitment Fee that is not paid in cash divided by the number of shares of Senior Preferred Stock outstanding at the time such payment is due;     
(iii) increased on the Dividend Payment Date if the Company fails to pay in full the dividend payable for the Dividend Period ending on such date by an amount per share equal to the aggregate amount of unpaid dividends divided by the number of shares of Senior Preferred Stock outstanding on such date; and     
(iv) decreased each time the Company pays down the Liquidation Preference pursuant to Section 3 or Section 4 of this Certificate by an amount per share equal to the aggregate amount of the pay down divided by the number of shares of Senior Preferred Stock outstanding at the time of such pay down.

The optional paydown while the funding commitment exists can only apply to (ii) and (iii) of 8(b), which pertain to missing or partial past commitment fee and dividend payments. By contrast, it is part (i) that ballooned the liquidation preference from $1B to $187B. Since the funding commitment never terminated, the implication that FnF (represented by FHFA) can demand Treasury to write off the seniors isn't correct because FnF never had the option to pay down the seniors, even if the NWS had never happened.

If I understand the contract correctly, FnF's only real path out of conservatorship (other than receivership) was to get to a point where they could sell $187B worth of stock and put that money into paying off the seniors. While technically possible, this was a near impossibility in practical terms. It's the PSPAs themselves, not just the NWS, that is the concrete life preserver.

The funding commitment is very important going forward because it provides the limited (entity-level) government guarantee that the administration wants without having to go through Congress. Thus there can be no attempt to retroactively (or even prospectively) terminate the funding commitment to allow the paydown.

The upshot: Treasury must agree to write down the liquidation preference of the seniors. If the contract didn't allow for it, a court isn't likely to mandate it. That would make the gist of Josh's tweet incorrect: FHFA can't plausibly sue Treasury to write off the seniors.

Josh's next tweet, where he said "The contract is for principal plus 10%. That has been satisfied.", is also incorrect because the seniors are not debt. Dividend payments do not reduce their balance. The contract has no terms for being satisfied if FnF were to (and did) pay back all the Treasury draws plus 10%. If I remember some of the unsealed Fairholme discovery documents correctly, the reason that Treasury chose equity and not debt was to keep FnF in conservatorship more or less permanently, at least until Congress could deal the killing blow.

This also goes to the very core of the remedy that Judge Atlas will prescribe, assuming that the case ever gets that far. I think this is very important, and if I am correct about this then Atlas will not be able to order the seniors extinguished because it would violate the terms of the contract while the other proposed remedy (Treasury returns all past quarterly payments that exceeded the 10% dividend and keeps the seniors) does not.

The $125B number floating around is that overage: the amount that FnF would have right now if they kept all past NWS payments and paid the 10% dividend instead. The Collins plaintiffs said $122B and one more NWS payment happened after that. Hoewver, this assumes a 0% interest rate. Taking the time value of money into account, it's $148B at 3% and $179B at 6%. If Treasury decides to convert the seniors into common (which both accomplishes the recap in conjunction with this payment and gives Treasury a way to recoup the expense), they will want enough commons to cover everything they send out and then some. That means the higher the interest rate used, the more commons Treasury will want. This is the basis of my worst case for the commons; they could go well under $1 if Treasury has to shell out $180B and wants nearly all the common equity in exchange. This solution should actually appeal to everyone other than existing common shareholders, incidentally.